Heer Engine Co. v. Papan
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Southern District; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; The contract shows appellee purchased the tractor and that he never paid for it as he agreed. It was delivered to him as per contract. A satisfactory demonstration was not agreed to in the contract of sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Southern District; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; The contract shows appellee purchased the tractor and that he never paid for it as he agreed. It was delivered to him as per contract. A satisfactory demonstration was not agreed to in the contract of sale. The contract contains no warranties or representations other than those that it was sold as a 24-brake horsepower, 16 tractive horsepower, and was warranted to develop the horsepower at which it was rated. There is no proof that the engine failed to develop its rated horsepower. The burden was on appellee,…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Heer Engine Company brought this suit in equity against John A. Papan to recover the purchase price of a tractor which it claims was sold under a written contract dated February 27, 1914, and also asked for a foreclosure of the vendor’s lien on the tractor. The defense was that the tractor did not develop the horse power warranted in the contract of sale in the demonstration of it, and that it was never accepted.
The chancellor found in favor of the defendant, and a decree was entered accordingly.
John A. Papan owned a farm of 640 acres in Prairie County, Arkansas, and used twelve mules in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Carle v. Avery Power MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Thomas v. SchaadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926